↓ Skip to main content

Ants Can Learn to Forage on One-Way Trails

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ants Can Learn to Forage on One-Way Trails
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0005024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Leite Ribeiro, André Frazão Helene, Gilberto Xavier, Carlos Navas, Fernando Leite Ribeiro

Abstract

The trails formed by many ant species between nest and food source are two-way roads on which outgoing and returning workers meet and touch each other all along. The way to get back home, after grasping a food load, is to take the same route on which they have arrived from the nest. In many species such trails are chemically marked by pheromones providing orientation cues for the ants to find their way. Other species rely on their vision and use landmarks as cues. We have developed a method to stop foraging ants from shuttling on two-way trails. The only way to forage is to take two separate roads, as they cannot go back on their steps after arriving at the food or at the nest. The condition qualifies as a problem because all their orientation cues -- chemical, visual or any other -- are disrupted, as all of them cannot but lead the ants back to the route on which they arrived. We have found that workers of the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa can solve the problem. They could not only find the alternative way, but also used the unidirectional traffic system to forage effectively. We suggest that their ability is an evolutionary consequence of the need to deal with environmental irregularities that cannot be negotiated by means of excessively stereotyped behavior, and that it is but an example of a widespread phenomenon. We also suggest that our method can be adapted to other species, invertebrate and vertebrate, in the study of orientation, memory, perception, learning and communication.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 4%
Malaysia 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 86 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 23%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Master 10 10%
Professor 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 57%
Computer Science 9 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 14 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,631,627
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#44,910
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,250
of 93,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#146
of 495 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 495 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.